It certainly was (emphasis on past tense) posted here - go back to the third page of this thread, and scroll about halfway down to the post by amused. Notice something’s been edited out by a mod, and the various exclamations just after that post?
I rarely weigh in on this sort of issue, but I am sorry that the moderators can’t see their way to give Satan another chance. I believe he is sincere, and I can recall the wonderful addition he was to the boards in the past.
Thanks for giving the date, Spiritus, I hadn’t read that and was wondering what everyone was referring to.
While I can understand why some people would read that and think that he would come back unchanged, I still think it’s an unfair assessment. He was actually trying not to go there, but gave in to frustration, that’s obvious. Certainly no one was expecting that he would have to actually, in his heart, completely get over any dislikes he has of the staff? That’s not a requirement, is it? There are one or two staff members that I think are completely irredeemable assholes and I am constantly astonished that they have been given positions of power.
Now that you know that, does that mean I don’t get to be here anymore? (I pose the question rhetorically, assuming I know the answer. Wouldn’t it be a riot if I got banned?)
I don’t say who they are, and I don’t get into it with them. I’m sure Brian is equally capable, and I think that’s all that should be necessary.
What I meant was that Satan originaly posted it in his LJ. The fact that amused, whover he is, er, was, posted it here is immaterial. Besides, Satan said in his letter that he didn’t have a change of heart until after the NYC dopefest, thet’s what prompted him to reevaluate his feelings and ask to be reinstated. Makes perfect sense to me.
Have you broken any SDMB rules? When a moderator told you “this is inappropriate in Great Debates”, did you then proceed to insult the moderator? I hope you see the difference.
The thing is that it wasn’t INTENDED to be posted here. It was posted here by somebody who disliked him and wanted to stir the shit, so to speak, and make sure he wasn’t allowed back. Unfortunately, that person’s shitty, cowardly tactic worked.
Not to say that I bear any ill will toward the staff. I agree with Polycarp in that I believe the staff got this one wrong, but they’re still in charge here, and I accept that. I appreciate that a sincere effort at examining the matter was made, even though I disagree strongly with the outcome.
Arnold, Lynn, Gaudere, UncleBeer, any others who have taken part that I’ve missed, I apologize if you think I was out of line starting this. The reason I did it publicly is that I felt an e-mail would be dismissed as “none of my business”, and rightly so. I’m not sure why I feel this way, but I think a private conversation of that type would have been more intrusive than an open discussion. If I was wrong, then again, I apologize to you. Although, I don’t really see that this has caused any problems beyond the inconvenience of discussing a former member’s possible return. It’s not like this thread was any more fiery than 15 dozen other pit threads. In fact, I think it’s been relatively tame, and overall, we comported ourselves rather well. 
And though I don’t know Mr Cynical all that well – at all, really – I believe I understand his reasons, though I wouldn’t like to see him go. I think the reason he’s leaving is not that Satan wasn’t allowed back (after all, he didn’t leave for two years when Satan wasn’t allowed back), but because of the appearance*** that somebody’s personal grudges or feelings took precedence in an administrative decision that should have been made objectively. In other words, it’s not a matter of letting his friend come back or he’ll go home, but a matter of fairness. (I think that) He feels that this decision was unfair and not given proper consideration. I think that, at the minimum, Brian deserved a more thoughtful response than a single paragraph saying essentially, “thanks for your interest, but no. Bye.” That’s a blow-off letter if I ever saw one, and working in the tech industry in the NYC area, I’ve seen more than my share of blow-off letters. I mean, come on…at least give the guy the courtesy of a meaningful response, given the time and effort he put into his apology letter.
And while I think you, Arnold, for your honesty in admitting the LiveJournal post influenced the decision, I don’t believe that it should have had any bearing on it. What I do in my house, for example, is no concern of the board’s, for the purposes of administrative decisions, even if some jackson playing a sock puppet posts about it. My home, my business. Same for a private journal. The fact that somebody posted it here inappropriately shouldn’t enter into the discussion - it deserves to be discounted becuase it’s, well, private and took place in a venue completely outside Straight Dope’s area of authority.
But thank you all for responding, and for being candid and friendly in your responses.
–Joe Cool
***I’m not saying that’s how it happened, only that that’s how it looks. I don’t mean any offense to any of you by this.
I disagree. An imperfect analogy:
PosterX says in his Livejournal “I’m a sock puppet for banned posterY, but the moderators haven’t caught on.” PosterZ sends me an e-mail saying “Hey, in Livejournal PosterX admits to being a sockpuppet for banned PosterY.” I am surely going to ban PosterX, even thought the knowledge came from Livejournal.
I didn’t say that I thought he would come back unchanged, stoid. I said that I did not believe his letter was 100% honest and reflective. That’s just my judgment. I do not ask you to share it, but I do not think it is unfair. As I said, though, I don’t want to get into a minute textual analysis and try to convince people that the elements I find disturbing present an accurate picture. Frankly, it would both serve no purpose and be unfair to Brian.
Arnold, would I be right in guessing that Satan’s request to be re-instated as a member of the SDMB isn’t the only one which has ever been denied, just the most public?
I’ve no dog in this fight, but am in an answerin’ mood (rhetorical though they may have been):
Yes, reprise, that’s correct. We’ve declined offers for reinstatement before.
Precisely! If Brian still has problems with some of the staff, so? As long as he doesn’t break the rules and insult the mods, his Live Journal revelations are beside the point.
Make that requests. More espresso for me.
Thanks Coldie, I was always under the impression that re-instatement of banned posters tended to be the exception rather than the rule - I just wanted to clarify that.
Not surprisingly, I disagree on this as well. If you want to say in your Livejournal “Arnold Winkelried is an asshole and on a power trip etc…” I won’t care because it’s not on the board. On the other hand, if you send me an e-mail saying “Believe me, Arnold, I bear no grudge against you and I think you’re a swell guy” and then I find out that privately you’re calling me a goat-felcher, then I will think “Perhaps Joe_Cool is not being honest with me? Or perhaps he is prone to sudden mood swings and changes of opinion?” People at LJ don’t have to follow SDMB rules, but when evaluating a person’s honesty, sincerity, state of mind etc… I am justified in considering things they say even when not on the board.
That’s also not a good analogy. He didn’t admit to any new wrongdoing that wasn’t already public knowledge, such as sock puppetry. He didn’t admit to killing Jimmy Hoffa or being the real Ed Zotti. He admitted only to disliking certain members of the staff, and thinking that things have been run unfairly here. No crime there. Otherwise, you’d better fire up the banning machine for me as well, because I dislike a nonzero fraction of the staff myself, and I think there have been some (IMO) shockingly unfair things done here in the past. In other words, I disagree with the feeling, if not the details, of his post. And again, it was not meant to be seen on this board. It was bitching privately, which I’m sure even you have done from time to time.
So it’s not that anything terrible came to light in that LJ post. All it did was serve to whip up the emotions that already run high when Brian’s name is mentioned. As I said, it was a cowardly, shitty tactic, and it’s unfortunate that it was successful.
Oh, and thanks to everybody who didn’t tell me to fuck myself (;)), whether you agreed with me or not. My ultimate goal with this thread was successful – we had some meaningful discussion, and the situation was fairly reconsidered, even though I don’t like the result.
Arnold’s questions in italics:
I don’t know anything about LJ, but my understanding is that Satan’s J belongs to an “SDMB group” of some kind, doesn’t it?
There’s an SDMB group of which his lj-account is a member (along with 200-odd others). It’s possible to post directly to the SDMB LJ community, as he did with the entry Stoid linked to. Non-private (or otherwise restricted) entries that are written by members can be seen, though, by pulling up the SDMB LJ community page and looking at its friends–that displays the X most recent posts by everyone who’s a member of the group.
- Given that, is he surprised that people at the SDMB would find out about what he said?*
Shouldn’t be.
Isn’t there a way to keep posts private so that not everyone can see them?
Aye. Entries can be set truly private, so that only that only the writer ever sees them, or locked to approved folks on one’s friends list (either the full set or a subset). IMO, maintaining that a non-locked Livejournal is a “private journal” is…well, it uses a definition of “private” that I’m not familiar with.
I’ll refer you to what I (and other people like Spiritus Mundi) say above. It is relevant when we try to determine if he is being sincere or not.
Joe_Cool
[ol][li]It isn’t a private journal. It is displayed in a very public place.[/li][li]Brian was banned for, among other things, abusive behavior toward moderators. Attacking moderators on the SDMB in a public forum is quite pertinent to questions of how Brian could be expected to behave if he returned.[/li][li]“My home, my business” is a reasonable standard. “My Internet, my business” is not.[/li]Judging the sincerity of an apology is always difficult. When the medium used for the apology is electronic text, the problems are compounded. Ignoring additional writings which directly address the issues prompting the apology would strike me as a foolish manner in which to make a judgment.[/ol]
Like I said, Arnold, I don’t agree with your decision, but I accept it and believe that it was arrived at in good faith. I sincerely wasn’t trying to make trouble for you guys.
I meant to say AGREE with the feeling, but not the details.
[sub]learn to type, you stupid ass! :rolleyes:[/sub]
Is it against the board rules to directly insult myself instead of my posts? How about if I forgive myself? 